Young v. Stenger

Background

The action had been stayed and administratively closed. It had been referred to the Federal Pro Bono Project to try to find pro bono counsel—an attorney volunteering legal services—to represent Plaintiff Lamar Young in preparing for and attending trial. The project told the court that it had not found a willing attorney.

Order

The court found good cause to reopen the action and referred it to Magistrate Judge Robert M. Illman for further mediation through the court’s Pro Se Prisoner Mediation Program. The program uses a neutral magistrate judge to conduct one or more settlement conferences in selected cases involving unrepresented plaintiffs.

Because no volunteer attorney had been found, the court ordered that Young represent himself during the settlement proceedings. If the case does not settle, Young must also represent himself at trial. The court stated that Young had adequately explained his position and that the issues were not particularly complex.

Magistrate Judge Illman was directed to schedule further settlement proceedings within 60 days of the order, or as soon afterward as his calendar allowed. He was also directed to coordinate the conference details and file a report within 10 days after all settlement proceedings ended.

Except for the further settlement proceedings and matters Illman considered necessary to conduct them, the action remains stayed until the court orders otherwise. If the case is not settled, trial is scheduled to begin on December 1, 2025; the court will issue another order setting pretrial deadlines and a pretrial conference.

Warnings and Disposition

The court warned Young that he must comply with all scheduling and pretrial orders. It stated that violations could lead to sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(f), including restrictions on supporting claims, striking pleadings, staying proceedings, or dismissing the action in whole or in part. The court also warned that failure to attend the settlement conference or follow Magistrate Judge Illman’s instructions and orders could result in dismissal of the action with prejudice under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute. This was a warning, not an order dismissing the action.

The court reopened the action, referred it for further settlement proceedings, continued the stay except for those proceedings and related matters, and directed the Clerk to send the order to the parties and Magistrate Judge Illman and terminate all pending motions.